June 1, 1995
INTRODUCTION
To foster continuing improvement of the Department’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance program, the Secretarial Policy Statement on NEPA, issued June 13, 1994, requires the Office of Environment, Safety and Health to solicit comments from the NEPA Document Manager, the NEPA Compliance Officer, and team members after completing each environmental impact statement and environmental assessment on lessons learned in the process, and to distribute a quarterly summary to all NEPA Compliance Officers and NEPA Document Managers.
This quarterly report summarizes the lessons learned for documents completed between
January 1 and March 31, 1995. It is based primarily on responses to the revised questionnaire that was provided for use during January 1995, and includes information on direct and indirect NEPA process costs and on total project costs. The report also includes a feature story that compares the techniques used to analyze environmental justice in the preparation of three environmental impact statements (EISs): the Savannah River Waste Management Draft EIS, the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs EIS, and the Draft EIS on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel.
Some of the material presented here reflects the personal views of individual questionnaire respondents, which (appropriately) may be inconsistent. Therefore, unless indicated otherwise, views reported herein should not be interpreted as recommendations from the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.
The next quarterly report will cover environmental impact statements and environmental assessments completed during the third quarter of fiscal year 1995 (April 1 through June 30, 1995). Please report on environmental impact statements and environmental assessments as they are completed. Questionnaires for all such documents completed between April 1 and June 30, 1995 are due by August 1, 1995. Completed questionnaires should be mailed or faxed (202-586-7031) directly to the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance. Please be sure to use the revised questionnaire issued during January 1995. The next quarterly report will be issued on
September 1, 1995.
ABOUT THIS LESSONS LEARNED QUARTERLY REPORT
According to Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance records, the Department of Energy (DOE) completed 21 environmental assessments and adopted one environmental impact statement during the second quarter of fiscal year 1995 (from January 1 to March 31, 1995). For the purposes of this report, the approval or adoption of a final environmental impact statement or the NEPA decision for an environmental assessment represents document completion.
As of May 30, the Office received 21 questionnaires covering
13 of the 21 environmental assessments as well as the one environmental impact statement. Questionnaire respondents included: four NEPA Compliance Officers, three NEPA Document Managers, one Project Manager, one NEPA Contact, and 12 others (i.e. contractors, NEPA specialists, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance staff).
NEPA DOCUMENT PREPARATION TIMES
Based on Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance records, the median time for the completion of 21 environmental assessments (from the NEPA determination to the Finding of No Significant Impact) was 24 months; the completion times ranged from about one month to about 57 months (see Figure 1 on page 4 ). For the previous two reporting periods (July 1 to September 30, 1994 and October 1 to December 30, 1994) and for this reporting period, cumulatively, the median time to prepare an environmental assessment was 16 months.
Questionnaire respondents indicated that of the eight environmental assessments for which scheduling information was reported for this quarter, three environmental assessments were completed on schedule and five were not. Also, for six environmental assessments and the environmental impact statement, respondents stated that the NEPA process was initiated early enough to avoid being on the critical path. For three environmental assessments, questionnaire respondents disagreed as to whether the NEPA process had begun early enough, some (for each project) reporting that the process had begun in time and some that it had not.
Circumstances that were mentioned as hindering timely NEPA document completion were:
Respondents identified the following as measures that facilitated timely completion of their NEPA documents:
Respondents suggested the following as especially effective procedures to keep the document schedule:
NEPA COST DATA
Document Managers, Project Managers, and one contractor reported NEPA process cost data for 12 of the 21 environmental assessments (see Figure 2 on page 4 ). NEPA process cost data were not reported for the adopted environmental impact statement. Of the four projects for which NEPA budget data were reported, two environmental assessments were completed within budget. For the purposes of this report, NEPA process costs are defined as the costs that would not have been incurred except for the NEPA process. Direct costs are defined as the total dollars expended for NEPA support contractors. Indirect costs are defined as any other costs incurred (e.g., travel), and include total program office and field office Federal staff resources (FTE-years).
Of the 12 environmental assessments for which direct cost data were reported, the median direct cost was $225,000 and the average direct cost was $282,290, with a range of $8,980 to $892,800. Because the reported costs for at least two environmental assessments appeared high compared with other Department environmental assessment preparation costs, we explored the basis for the reported costs further. Based on the best information available to the NEPA Document Manager for two environmental assessments (Maybell and Naturita), reported figures include significant project costs that are unrelated to NEPA; the true costs to prepare the environmental assessments were approximately $300,000 and $400,000 less than reported. Taking account of these best estimates, the median and average direct costs of the 12 environmental assessments were $210,700 and $224,000.
Total project costs were reported for three environmental assessments. Of these, the NEPA process costs reported represented .01%, .4%, and .14% of the total project costs. Using the direct cost data gathered for both this and the first two reporting periods (July 1 to September 30, 1994 and October 1 to December 31, 1994), the median direct cost for preparation of 23 environmental assessments was $92,000 (and remains $92,000 taking into account the cost discrepancy indicated above). However, it should be noted that direct cost data were provided for only 48% of the environmental assessments completed during this nine month period.
Respondents were unable to provide NEPA process cost data for several NEPA documents. One respondent suggested that all NEPA costs, including direct contractor costs and indirect costs for DOE staff time (Headquarters, program office, field counsel, general counsel) should be tracked as the environmental assessment process progresses, resulting in an accurate accounting for the project. This would allow future budgets to actually represent realistic costs.
NEPA DOCUMENT CONTENT
In response to our request that respondents describe specific problems and/or innovative approaches used regarding 1) determining reasonable alternatives, 2) data collection, and 3) impact analysis, a wide variety of helpful information was provided, as discussed below.
Determining Reasonable Alternatives: One respondent experienced excessive delays in the NEPA process because the project was not evaluated completely in the early stages of development. The respondent suggested that thorough planning early in the process would significantly aid in preventing midstream modifications.
Data Collection and Impact Analysis: Several respondents from one project indicated that consultation with other agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Soil Conservation Service proved to be helpful in the evaluation process. Using data that were available from these sources saved considerable time and resulted in a more accurate and consistent analysis.
THE DOCUMENT PREPARATION PROCESS
Respondents noted the following as measures that facilitated effective DOE teamwork:
Factors that hampered DOE teamwork included:
Regarding the facilitation of effective teamwork between DOE and its support contractors, one respondent for the General Purpose Heat Source environmental assessment at Sandia National Laboratory noted that teamwork was effective because the contractor was very knowledgeable about the site and NEPA requirements, extremely cooperative, and responsive to DOE changes.
Regarding the successful aspects of the public participation process, one respondent commented, “periodic updating of the public through the site’s ‘Environmental Bulletin’ helped to minimize negative stakeholder comments/response during the predecisional draft EA review and comment process.” Similarly, another respondent noted that monthly DOE bulletins and early presentation to the public helped to minimize adverse public concerns and comments. Regarding unsuccessful aspects of the public participation process, one respondent stated that the public perceived that each federal agency has its own policy and procedures for the NEPA process rather than a federally mandated one. Another respondent mentioned that not enough time was allowed for the public to comment.
Four respondents stated that the public responded favorably to the NEPA process, while four others reported negative public reactions. One respondent reported a strong reaction from a Yakama Indian Nation representative that the impacts of a no-action alternative were not emphasized enough. Additionally, four respondents reported minimal or no public response to the NEPA process.
Regarding the availability of resources, two respondents indicated that this was a problem, while 13 respondents stated that resource availability was not a problem. Deficiencies included time constraints placed on staff, e.g., short turn-around times for reviews scheduled by the lead agency.
COMPLETION TIME AND COST INFORMATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
Albuquerque Operations Office
1 = Relocation of Weapons Component Testing Facility, LANL,
Los Alamos, New Mexico
2 = Actinide Source Term Test Program, LANL, Los Alamos, New
Mexico
3 = Remedial Action at the Slick Rock Uranium Mill Tailings
Sites, Slick Rock, Colorado
4 = Remedial Action, Uranium Mill Tailings Project, Maybell,
Colorado*
5 = Remedial Action, Uranium Processing Site, Naturita, Colorado*
6 = Impact Tests of Simulated Heat Source at 10,000 Feet Rocket
Track, SNL, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bonneville Power Administration
7 = Supplemental Snake River Sockeye Salmon Sawtooth Valley
Conservation and Rebuilding Project, Idaho
8 = Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Project, Okanogan and Ferry
Counties, Washington
Chicago Operations Office
9 = Radioactive Waste Handling Building at Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois
Idaho Operations Office
10 = Construction and Operation of a Waste Characterization
Facility (WCF), INEL, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Nevada Operations Office
11 = Construction and Operation of North Las Vegas Facility
(Nevada Support Facility), Las Vegas, Nevada
12 = Sewage Lagoon System, Area 5, Nevada Test Site, Mercury,
Nevada
Oak Ridge Operations Office
13 = Construction and Operation of Retrievable TRU Mixed
Waste Storage Facility, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
14 = Construction and Operation of a Solid Waste Landfill at
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky
Oakland Operations Office
15 = Tritium Filling Station (TFS) at the Laboratory for
Laser Energetics, University of Rochester, Rochester,
New York
Richland Operations Office
16 = Characterization of Stored Defense Production Spent
Nuclear Fuel and Associated Materials, Hanford Site, Richland,
Washington
17 = Tank 241-C-106 Sluicing, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington
18 = Radioactive Liquid Waste Line Replacement for the 222-S
Laboratory Site, Hanford, Richland, Washington
Savannah River Operations Office
19 = DOE Permission for Offloading Activities to Support
the Movement of a Radiologically Contaminated Barge Across Savannah
River Site, SRS, Aiken, South Carolina
20 = Upgrade of the Site Road Infrastructure at the Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Office
21 = Leasing of the St. James Terminal, St. James Parish,
Louisiana
* The NEPA Document Manager reports that a significant fraction
of these reported costs were project costs unrelated to NEPA
(i.e., the project would have incurred these costs even if no
environmental assessment was being prepared). Although accounting
systems reportedly do not allow these non-NEPA costs to be broken
out, best available estimates are that the actual costs of preparing
these environmental assessments were $300,000 and $400,000 less
than the reported figures for the Maybell and Naturita environmental
assessments, respectively.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEPA PROCESS
When asked how the NEPA process was used in agency planning and decision making, 10 respondents stated that the process was useful for the following reasons:
Six questionnaire respondents stated that the process was not useful or was only minimally useful. One of these respondents stated that the NEPA process was not perceived to have any direct relationship with planning and decision making.
The figure to the right illustrates how respondents rated the effectiveness of the NEPA process with respect to influence on decision making on a scale of 0 to 5 (“5" using NEPA as an important planning tool, and “0" viewing the NEPA process as “another permit” for a decision already made).
OTHER LESSONS LEARNED
Some respondents offered miscellaneous comments regarding lessons learned in the process of completing NEPA documentation. One respondent identified a lesson learned as the “need to make sure that the Assistant Secretary is made aware of and is comfortable with signing off on a document before the document is ready for signature.”
Regarding NEPA process budget/cost issues, a respondent noted: “The technical support services costs for this NEPA process are estimated on a level-of-effort prorated basis for a task that included related work (such as market analysis and preparing business strategy, proposed action and solicitation specifications and language) to plan leasing Strategic Petroleum Reserves’ pipelines and terminal to industry. Cost reporting for future NEPA processes would be facilitated by structuring each NEPA review as a separate task.”
REMINDER: Lessons Learned Questionnaires for all NEPA documents
completed during the third quarter of FY 95 (April 1 to June 30, 1995), should
be submitted as soon as possible after document completion, but no later than
August 1, 1995.
(Fax: 202-586-7031)
PROCEDURES FOR EIS DISTRIBUTION AND FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENTS
Two procedures that are essential to the environmental impact statement process are the distribution of the draft and final environmental impact statement to the public, and publication of Notices in the Federal Register, such as Notices of Intent and Records of Decision. These procedures can be cumbersome and time consuming. Accordingly, the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance is developing ways to make these procedures more efficient, and will issue guidance on these topics shortly that would update information provided in Volume 1 of the NEPA Compliance Guide. The following outline may assist those seeking to complete these processes in the interim.
Distribution of Environmental Impact Statements
An environmental impact statement must be distributed to both public officials and the general public before the document may be filed with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters. Please refer to the Directory of Potential Stakeholders for Department of Energy Action Under NEPA (updated periodically by the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42)) to supplement any local list of interested stakeholders. Further, as a matter of protocol, the distribution team should send packages to key government officials (members of Congress, governors, heads of tribes and Indian tribal associations) first. All letters to such government officials require concurrence by the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs and are normally signed by the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1). For specific information on the signature process, contact the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance.
Once the distribution has been completed, (i.e., copies of the environmental impact statement have been mailed) the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance will file five copies of the document with EPA Headquarters. The official start of the comment period for a draft environmental impact statement is the date that the EPA Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register. This Notice is published on the Friday of the week following the filing of the environmental impact statement with EPA Headquarters (e.g., the Notice for a document filed on Monday, May 22, 1995, would be published on Friday, June 2, 1995). Any DOE Notice of Availability should be published on the same day as the EPA Notice, if possible, although this is not a requirement.
Program staff should plan the distribution with their counterparts from the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance. The program office is responsible for writing and producing the transmittal letters and packaging the documents. Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance staff are available to facilitate this process by (1) reviewing a draft of all transmittal letters to be signed by DOE Headquarters, and reviewing their associated mailing lists, (2) obtaining EH-1 and EH-42 signatures on appropriate letters, and (3) filing the document with EPA.
Publishing Department of Energy Information in the Federal Register
Most Notices begin with a series of headings that identify the issuing agency and the subject matter of the document. These headings include: Billing code, Agency, Action (Title), Summary, Dates, Addresses, For Further Information Contact, and Supplementary Information. Format and content requirements differ with respect to the specific category for publication (e.g., Rules and regulations, Proposed rules, Notices, etc.). Federal Register Notice requirements are detailed in the Document Drafting Handbook issued by the Office of the Federal Register (1991).
DOE's NEPA process requires several Federal Register Notices, including a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (signed by the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health) and a Record of Decision (normally signed by a Program Secretarial Officer). The document must receive concurrence from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Law. The document must then be submitted to Ms. Rita Rosen of the Office of Rulemaking Support, who will then submit the publication to the Federal Register office. Please be advised that in order to ensure timely publication, due to processing time requirements, Ms. Rosen should receive the document no later than seven working days before its expected publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Rulemaking Support advises that only in the event of a true emergency can a document be published in less than seven working days. In the event of an emergency please contact both the Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance and the Office of Rulemaking Support for assistance.
Any further questions regarding the preparation of a document for publication in the Federal Register may be directed to
Ms. Rosen at (202) 586-3277. Additionally, Ms. Rosen has prepared drafting guidance entitled "Guidelines for Processing Federal Register Documents," copies of which may be obtained by calling the above number.
UPDATE ON THE DOE NEPA WEB
In October 1994, the Department of Energy made its corporate NEPA information available via the World Wide Web on the Internet. The DOE NEPA Web contains reference and project-related information that can be retrieved by DOE NEPA practitioners. In addition to DOE NEPA information, the DOE Web (Home Page) provides a link to the Council on Environmental Quality Web, which includes a database containing regulations and guidance. Increased utilization of these resources will result in NEPA cost and time savings. A future issue of the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report will provide information on how the DOE NEPA Web may be used in environmental analyses and their dissemination.
The DOE NEPA Web's Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address is http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepa.htm>
For further information, contact Lee Jessee via the Internet at lee.jessee@hq.doe.gov or at (202) 586-7600. To report lessons learned on the DOE NEPA Web, or other Internet resources, contact either Lee Jessee at the above address or Joanne Geroe at joanne.arenwald@hq.doe.gov or (202) 775-8397.
DATA SOURCES AVAILABLE ON THE DOE NEPA WEB
NEPA
Announcements
- Public participation opportunities
Department of Energy NEPA Analyses
- Environmental Impact
Statements
- Environmental Assessments
- Full-text retrieval of the
Department's baseline environmental, safety and health information
NEPA Tools
- Department of Energy regulations and
guidance
- Gateway to Council on Environmental Quality regulations and
guidance
- Environmental Law & Related Documents from Indiana University Law
Library
NEPA Process Information
- Department of Energy
Annual Planning Summaries
- DOE NEPA Planning and Management Chart
ANALYZING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN NEPA DOCUMENTS
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 requires federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. In coordination with an interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice convened by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOE has developed an environmental justice strategy (April 1995) which provides a framework for integrating environmental justice principles into DOE's operations. This strategy does not currently discuss methods for environmental justice analyses in NEPA documents. The Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance expects to issue such guidance by October 1995.
In the absence of definitive guidance in this area, the Department has used several approaches. We report here on three approaches used in three environmental impact statements (EISs): the Savannah River Site Waste Management (SRS) Draft EIS, the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs (SNF), and the Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (FRR).
Table 1 compares the approaches used in analyzing environmental justice issues in the three EISs. The analysis shows how differences in definitions of certain key parameters used in environmental justice analyses may affect the outcome. Although these approaches differed, each demonstrated that the respective alternative actions did not have the potential to result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. Although we do not recommend a particular approach at this time, please note that in its written comments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV commended the SRS EIS for its environmental justice analysis. Also, in written comments on the SNF EIS, EPA indicated that, in contrast to programmatic EISs, a proportionately greater level of detail for environmental justice analyses in project or site-specific EISs may be appropriate. Further, in accordance with the “sliding scale” principle discussed in the Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, a more detailed level of quantification may be appropriate if analyses showed a potential for adverse impacts.
The SRS EIS analyzed disproportionate adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in three areas: (1) air emissions, (2) impacts from transportation of wastes off-site, and (3) impacts from consuming fish and game. Low-income and minority communities within an 80 kilometer radius of SRS were identified by census tract. The area within the 80 kilometer radius was then divided into 22.5 degree sectors with concentric rings arranged from 16 to 80 kilometers. The 80 kilometer radius was selected because the expected dose levels beyond that distance are very small. Predicted average radiation doses were calculated and totaled for census tracts within each ring. This total was divided by the total community population to obtain a mean per capita dose for areas within each ring. The dose predicted for each census tract was compared to the mean dose. The same procedure was used to analyze potential impacts from transportation of wastes off-site and from consuming fish and game.
The SNF environmental impact statement also used an 80 kilometer radius as the zone of potential impact. This radius was selected because it was judged to encompass all of the impacts that may occur. The environmental impact statement identified minority and low-income populations using census tracts. Human health and environmental impacts were analyzed for the population as a whole within the radius, i.e., the area within the radius was not divided into sectors, as in the SRS EIS. In cases where the census tract lay partially within the area being analyzed, tracts were included in the analysis if 50% of the tract fell within the radius. The doses for relevant census tracts were compared to the dose within the radius.
The FRR environmental justice analysis states that the largest radiological effects would usually be expected to occur within roughly a 16-kilometer radius. Thus, the distribution of minority and low income populations is described for circular areas defined by a 16-kilometer radius, centered at each candidate port of entry. Minority and low-income populations were identified at the block group level instead of using census tracts. In cases where the block group lay partially within the area being analyzed, it was assumed that the general population and the minority population were distributed uniformly. Therefore, the analysis included the fraction of the low-income or minority population that corresponded to the fraction of the census block group that fell within the radius. An environmental justice analysis was conducted for communities surrounding transportation routes from potential ports of entry to interim management sites; potential impacts were analyzed for populations within 800 meters of roads and rail routes that might be used. Environmental justice impacts were not quanitified at potential interim storage sites because it was determined that any potential impacts would be to site workers and not to the general population.
The EISs use different definitions and different statistical measures to identify low-income and minority populations. For instance, the SRS and SNF EISs use the EPA definition of “low-income population” while the FRR EIS uses the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition. Also, the EISs use different definitions of “minority population” (See Table 1). Both the SRS and SNF EISs use census tracts as statistical measures to identify minority and low-income populations, while FRR uses block groups. As noted, in each case the analysis failed to identify any disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority and low-income populations.
For further information on environmental justice, contact John Pulliam at (202) 586-4597.
Table 1 Definitions and Statistical Measures For Environmental Justice Analyses
Savannah River SNF Environmental FRR Environmental
Environmental Impact Impact Statement Impact Statement
Statement
Definition of EPA - A group of people EPA - See Savannah HUD - An area for which
“Low-Income and/or community River and U.S. Bureau the median household
Population” Used experiencing common of Census income is 80% or below
conditions of exposure the median household
or impact in which 25% income for the
or more of the metropolitan
population is statistical area
characterized as living (urban) or county
in poverty. F.R. 1993, (rural).
58 F.R. 231. Poverty
is defined by the U.S.
Bureau of Census as a
classification of
persons whose income is
less than a
“statistical poverty
threshold” which is a
weighted average based
on family size and the
age of persons in the
family. The baseline
threshold for the 1990
census was an income of
$8,076 for a family of
2 during the previous
year.
Definition of Communities of people Census tracts within Individuals classified
"Minority of color who, over the the zone of impact for by the U.S. Bureau of
Population" Used region of analysis, which the percent the Census as
consist of higher than minority population Negro/Black/African
average percentages of (non-White) exceeds the American, Hispanic,
people of color. Higher average of all census Asian and Pacific
than average tracts within the zone Islander, American
percentages are defined of impact or where the Indians, Eskimo, Aleut
as between 35 and 50 percent minority and other non-White
percent (or greater) of population exceeds 50% persons. The minority
the total population in of the spacial area for population in an
the tract. any given census tract. affected area is the
In the case of migrant number of individuals
or dispersed residing in the area
populations, a minority who are members of a
population consists of minority group.
a group that is greater
than 50% minority.
Statistical Measure Census Tract - Areas Census Tract Block Group - Areas
Used to Identify defined for the purpose defined for the purpose
Minority and of monitoring census of monitoring census
Low-Income data that are usually data that generally
Communities comprised of between consists of between 250
2,500 and 8,000 and 550 housing units.
persons, with 4000
persons being ideal.
Findings of No disproportionately No disproportionately No disproportionately
Environmental high and adverse effects high and adverse effects high and adverse effects
Justice Analysis
Environmental Impact Statement Completed Between January 1 and March 31, 1995
Environmental Impact Statement (Title and Document Program
Number)
Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Facilities Improvements Project and Geysers Efficient
Pipeline Project, Lake County, California (Adopted
by DOE)
Environmental Assessments Completed Between January 1 and March 31, 1995
Environmental Assessment (Title and Operations Office Program
Document Number)
Relocation of Weapons Component Albuquerque Operations Office Defense Programs
Testing Facility, LANL, Los Alamos,
New Mexico (DOE/EA-0972)
Remedial Action at the Slick Rock Albuquerque Operations Office Environmental
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites, Slick Management
Rock, Colorado (DOE/EA-0339)
Remedial Action, Uranium Mill Albuquerque Operations Office Environmental
Tailings Project, Maybell, Colorado Management
(DOE/EA-0347)
Remedial Action, Uranium Processing Albuquerque Operations Office Environmental
Site, Naturita, Colorado Management
(DOE/EA-0464)
Actinide Source Term Test Program, Albuquerque Operations Office Environmental
LANL, Los Alamos, New Mexico Management
(DOE/EA-0977)
Impact Tests of Simulated Heat Albuquerque Operations Office Nuclear Energy
Source at 10,000 Feet Rocket
Track, SNL, Albuquerque, New
Mexico (DOE/EA-1025)
Supplemental Snake River Sockeye Bonneville Power Administration Bonneville Power
Salmon Sawtooth Valley Conservation Administration
and Rebuilding Project, Idaho
(DOE/EA-0934)
Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Bonneville Power Administration Bonneville Power
Project, Okanogan and Ferry Administration
Counties, Washington (DOE/EA-0940)
Radioactive Waste Handling Building Chicago Operations Office Environmental
at Fermi National Accelerator Management
Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois
(DOE/EA-1000)
Environmental Assessment (Title and Operations Office Program
Document Number)
Construction and Operation of a Idaho Operations Office Environmental
Waste Characterization Facility Management
(WCF), INEL, Idaho Falls, ID
(DOE/EA-0906)
Construction and Operation of North Nevada Operations Office Defense Programs
Las Vegas Facility (Nevada Support
Facility), Las Vegas, Nevada
(DOE/EA-0955)
Sewage Lagoon System, Area 5, Nevada Operations Office Environmental
Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada Management
(DOE/EA-1026)
Construction and Operation of Oak Ridge Operations Office Environmental
Retrievable TRU Mixed Waste Storage Management
Facility, ORNL, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee (DOE/EA-0349)
Construction and Operation of a Oak Ridge Operations Office Environmental
Solid Waste Landfill at Paducah Management
Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,
Kentucky (DOE/EA-1046)
Tritium Filling Station (TFS) at Oakland Operations Office Defense Programs
the Laboratory for Laser
Energetics, University of
Rochester, Rochester, New York
(DOE/EA-0731)
Characterization of Stored Defense Richland Operations Office Defense Programs
Production Spent Nuclear Fuel and
Associated Materials, Hanford
Site, Richland, Washington
(DOE/EA-1030)
Tank 241-C-106 Sluicing, Hanford Richland Operations Office Environmental
Site, Richland, Washington Management
(DOE/EA-0933)
Radioactive Liquid Waste Line Richland Operations Office Environmental
Replacement for the 222-S Management
Laboratory Site, Hanford,
Richland, Washington (DOE/EA-0944)
DOE Permission for Off-Loading Savannah River Operations Office Environmental
Activities to Support the Movement Management
of a Radiologically Across
Savannah River Site, SRS, Aiken,
South Carolina (DOE/EA-1009)
Upgrade of the Site Road Savannah River Operations Office Environmental
Infrastructure at the Savannah Management
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina
(DOE/EA-1032)
Leasing of the St. James Terminal, Strategic Petroleum Reserve Project Fossil Energy
St. James Parish, Louisiana Office
(DOE/EA-1003)